Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Adam Johnson trial

I have been following this for a few days now live on this link

Wondered what everyone thought about this. Its obvious he is guilty, but just how guilty is he?

The jury are out and a decision is imminent.


  • Without wishing to sound too anal about this..............

    It is not "obvious" he is guilty. Until 12 of his peers say so, he is innocent. 12 of his peers will have heard all the evidence not just the bits the press has chosen to report. Only they can judge his guilt.

    If they say his guilty, then the judge having heard all the evidence and read any applicable reports will determine the appropriate sentence within the guidelines given to him by Government.

    We, who have not heard all the evidence, should trust those who have to make more informed judgements than we are able to.

  • For perhaps the first time ever, I 100% agree with a @DevC post.

  • Sorry but he is guilty. Sacked Sunderland AFC winger Adam Johnson is standing trial at Bradford Crown Court accused of two counts of sexual activity with a child. He has admitted one count of sexual activity with a child and a charge of grooming. It is to what extent he went to. 856 snapchat messages speaks volumes!

  • 'but just how guilty is he?' Interesting stuff and I think I know where you are coming from but I wouldn't want to discuss that aspect on a message board...maybe at a dinner party with friends, but not on here. The interesting thing for me is whether we would be happy to have him as a player if he was found guilty, and I wondered if this would crop up at some time. My view having knocked around the world a fairly long time now, I would rather have him than that Plymouth keeper that killed those kids whilst drunk. Is he a paedophile, yes he is, but there are shades of paedophilia, and different levels of it. A 15 year old girl can look and act like an 18 year old, but we all know where to draw the line.....Johnson is a young silly chap, but there for the grace of God go thousands of his age.

  • "There are shades of paedophilia" - seriously?? Did you mean that there are different types of under-age sex, paedophilia is actually a category of child sex offence, its use to describe of the type considered by this jury is not in my view correct. Nevertheless the jury is considering not just under age sex, but grooming, so I'd suggest its a it worse than somebody being 'a silly chap'.

  • He is guilty of the crimes he has admitted. The judge will sentence him on those counts in due course.

    He is not guilty of the crimes the jury are considering until the jury say to the contrary.
    If the jury say he is guilty of those, the judge will not doubt sentence him on those also.

    Once he has served any punishments the judge considers appropriate he will have paid the appropriate price to society and is then free to earn employment as he sees fit.

  • Well he is guilty of at least some of the offences as he plead as such. The others let's wait and see.

    He clearly went beyond simply being a silly chap and misused his position to take advantage of an enamoured 15 year old. Is this as bad as some other crimes against children? I'd say not. But it's still a crime.

    I think people need to be very careful with posts on this topic as it's still an ongoing court case.

  • Yes seriously, like there are shades or different levels of all crimes, a theft of a sweet is not the same as the theft of a diamond ring. Remember there are different levels of child pornography, level one to five, and they are treated differently by courts depending on which level was accessed. But yes Baldric, I'd concede the 'silly chap' regarding the grooming, I had quite forgotten about that, which f my memory serves me correct he has pleaded guilty to.

  • MBS - that's clearer thanks - though not all child sex offenders are paedophiles as your previous post also suggests. Under-age sex is not necessarily paedophilia. But as you say best left off message boards.

  • Its up to each individual & I am far from a legal expert, so I wont pretend I know but I'd suggest its not a good idea to be commenting on an ongoing legal case on a public social media forum like this one.

    Maybe have a read of this:

  • Can we go back to discussing crap towns

  • @BSE Thank you for that. Maybe the admins could pin this somewhere as a reminder of the legal limits that apply on line.

  • My wife's a lawyer. She says @DevC post is authoritative and while a WWFC fan board probably won't sway a jury, it's not a wise discussion to be having during an ongoing case, so I think we'll close it off here.

This discussion has been closed.